One can make
two types of decision regarding transit use.
Let’s call them “daily use” and “everyday use”. Both are based on rational assessments of the
cost and convenience of transit versus car.
Both are good for traffic congestion, air quality, etc. But the everyday use decision is far more important
to urbanism and to the world.
Daily use is
the decision to take transit for a particular trip, without a commitment beyond
the current day.
For the
first five years of my career, I rode BART from Walnut Creek to San Francisco
nearly every workday. I didn’t make that
decision because of any grand philosophical justification or government
dictate. I rode BART because it was
cheaper than paying for gasoline, bridge tolls, and parking. Plus I preferred spending my morning commute reading
the San Francisco Chronicle instead of watching brake lights. My morning
memories of those years are mostly Herb Caen and Armistead Maupin.
But despite
riding BART to work nearly every day, I still had a car. I had to live in a home at which parking was
available. And I continued to paying for
insurance, maintenance, etc. On any particular
morning, I could have chosen to drive to work instead of riding BART. And sometimes I did so because of post-work
commitments. I was a car-owner who
happened to use transit regularly.
Today, I
still make daily use calculations several times a month. When considering a meeting or athletic event
in the Bay Area, I think about transit options versus driving, considering cost
and convenience. And I still have a car
in the driveway.
But there is
another more profound decision that can be made. To have one fewer car in the household and to
instead rely exclusively on transit. (I’m
using “transit” as shorthand for a comprehensive car non-ownership
strategy. Transit alone is rarely
sufficient for living with one fewer car in the garage. But it can be an essential element of a
strategy that might also include a personal bicycle, bike share, taxis, CityShare
Cars, etc.)
Historically,
the “one fewer car” strategy was usually conceived as a family finding a way to
make do with one vehicle instead of two.
But the millennial generation is beginning to show us that a car
reduction from one to zero is also a possibility.
The cost
savings of making an everyday transit decision and pruning a car can be large. Not only are the car purchase, maintenance,
and insurances costs eliminated, but if one lives in a cutting-edge setting
where housing and parking have been decoupled, the cost of a parking space can
also be dropped. If the parking is
structured, the savings can be $20,000 or more.
But the
decision to do with one fewer car is more complex that deciding to walk to a
bus stop Monday through Friday. It’s
about assembling a cost-effective strategy for all the needs of living, from
weekly grocery shopping to the delivery of a large screen television to taking
a weekend in the wine country. If the
obstacles to any of those tasks become overly burdensome, it’s easy to buy a
car, secure parking, rejoin the masses, and resume adding traffic congestion to
the streets and greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
So providing
ways to facilitate the everyday transit decision is good public policy. Some folks take the charge seriously.
Hacienda, a mixed-use
project in Pleasanton that will someday host almost 20,000 on-site workers and nearly
4,000 residents, has taken a step in the right direction. In partnership with City CarShare and Schneider
Electric, and under the review of UC Berkeley, a fleet of electric vehicles has
been made available to the residents and workers.
Need to make
a business trip to San Francisco, go to lunch with co-workers, or visit a
hardware store during a break? An
electric car is available.
It’s still a
trial effort. The long-term
implementation is still uncertain, including details such who covers the
cost. But it’s a creative idea that
makes living without a personal vehicle one step easier.
Contrast
that to some of the North Bay thinking.
Now that it’s commonly understood that the widening of Highway 101 remains at least seven years away, there is
additional regional hope that the coming SMART train can be part of a
comprehensive strategy to do with fewer personal vehicles.
Early on,
SMART seemed to embrace the challenge.
Management talked of shuttles that would deliver passengers from
stations to places of employment. And SMART
was an active participant in land planning efforts to add transit-oriented
development near the stations.
More recently,
both initiatives seem to have faded. I recently
heard a rumor that no funding would be available for shuttles. And despite the Petaluma Station Area Plan
having been adopted nearly a year ago, the SMART parcel adjoining the downtown
Petaluma train station hasn’t been made available to developers.
I don’t sit
at the SMART management table. But I
think a train can be a good regional addition.
And I sympathize with SMART’s problem.
The long-range planning assumed a continued robust economy that would generate
solid sales tax revenues. The economy
hasn’t been robust and may still be years from being as strong as hoped during the
planning.
Nonetheless,
the SMART goal should be to facilitate non-car lifestyles. At present, SMART seems to believe that delivering
a working train that may encourage daily use will be adequate. It’s not.
We need a system that will encourage everyday use. Shuttles, transit-oriented development, and a
big picture strategy are required. And they’re
required now.
The Hacienda
electric car program isn’t a complete solution, but it can be part of a
complete solution. Which seems to be
more than SMART is currently offering.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment